Sat, Nov 13 2021
·
Week 11
·
🏟 Beaver Stadium
University Park, PA
·
Turf
·
106,572 cap
Michigan✈ 320 miSame TZ
Matchup Prediction
Michigan
has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor
Michigan entering this game.
Momentum Control
73.7%
Michigan wins
Solid
Game Control
64.9%
Michigan wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Michigan -2.5
O/U 48.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
All 4 factors agree → Michigan
· 83.1% ATS historically when all four align
↓ See full breakdown
Michigan 2021 Schedule
Michigan's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/4 | Michigan vs Western Michigan | -16.5W47–14 | 65.5 | W47–14 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/11 | Michigan vs Washington | -6.5W31–10 | 47.5 | W31–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/18 | Michigan vs Northern Illinois | -27.5W63–10 | 54.5 | W63–10 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/25 | Michigan vs Rutgers | -20.0W20–13 | 50.0 | W20–13 | U | N |
| Sat 10/2 | Michigan at Wisconsin | +2.0W38–17 | 43.5 | W38–17 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/9 | Michigan at Nebraska | -2.5W32–29 | 50.5 | W32–29 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/23 | Michigan vs Northwestern | -23.5W33–7 | 51.5 | W33–7 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/30 | Michigan at Michigan State | -4.0L33–37 | 50.5 | L33–37 | O | N |
| Sat 11/6 | Michigan vs Indiana | -20.5W29–7 | 51.0 | W29–7 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/13 | Michigan at Penn State | -2.5W21–17 | 48.0 | W21–17 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/20 | Michigan at Maryland | -16.0W59–18 | 58.5 | W59–18 | O | Y |
| Sat 11/27 | Michigan vs Ohio State | +6.5W42–27 | 63.5 | W42–27 | O | Y |
| Sat 12/4 | Michigan vs Iowa | -12.0W42–3 | 43.5 | W42–3 | O | Y |
| Fri 12/31 | Michigan vs Georgia | +7.5L11–34 | 47.0 | L11–34 | U | N |
Penn State 2021 Schedule
Penn State's 2021 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/4 | Penn State at Wisconsin | +5.5W16–10 | 48.5 | W16–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/11 | Penn State vs Ball State | -23.0W44–13 | 58.0 | W44–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/18 | Penn State vs Auburn | -4.0W28–20 | 53.0 | W28–20 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/25 | Penn State vs Villanova | -29.5W38–17 | 53.0 | W38–17 | O | N |
| Sat 10/2 | Penn State vs Indiana | -12.0W24–0 | 54.5 | W24–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/9 | Penn State at Iowa | +2.5L20–23 | 41.0 | L20–23 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 10/23 | Penn State vs Illinois | -24.5L18–20 | 46.0 | L18–20 | U | N |
| Sat 10/30 | Penn State at Ohio State | +18.5L24–33 | 60.5 | L24–33 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/6 | Penn State at Maryland | -10.0W31–14 | 56.5 | W31–14 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/13 | Penn State vs Michigan | +2.5L17–21 | 48.0 | L17–21 | U | N |
| Sat 11/20 | Penn State vs Rutgers | -14.0W28–0 | 44.5 | W28–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/27 | Penn State at Michigan State | -3.5L27–30 | 51.5 | L27–30 | O | N |
| Sat 1/1 | Penn State vs Arkansas | +3.5L10–24 | 51.0 | L10–24 | U | N |
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) ·
2021 season
Agreement Signals — When All Metrics Agree
Elite · 83.1% ATS
PPA + PPO + SR + Havoc
All 4 Agree
→ Michigan
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
3 Agree
→ Michigan
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Michigan
Individual Factors — Ranked by Predictive Strength
PPA Overall
Points added per play · Elite predictor
PPA Passing
Pass efficiency edge · Strong predictor
Havoc Total
Def. disruption rate · Strong predictor
TFLs, sacks, PBUs, forced fumbles — higher is better
Points Per Opp
Drive-finishing edge · Strong predictor
Success Rate
Play consistency edge · Solid predictor
Field Position
Avg start (lower=better) · Solid predictor
Avg yards from own endzone to average start — lower is better · longer bar = better field position
Advanced stats sourced from CFBD · 2021 season ·
Edges are matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense)
Power Ratings
Team Power Ratings
Overall · Offense · Defense ratings · Updated as season progresses
Power ratings updated throughout the season as results accumulate
Momentum Control (CSS)
Consecutive Scoring Sequences
Who builds scoring momentum?
Michigan Edge
Michigan +1.83
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 73.7% of games historically
Based on 8 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Michigan Edge
Michigan +17.5
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 64.9% of games historically
Based on 9 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Penn State
1 — 0 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
Michigan
20.2 — 55.6 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Michigan won by 4
✓ Model called it
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season
Both metrics agree on Michigan with a moderate edge in both. This is the strongest ATS signal in our backtest: teams in this situation have covered 55.8% of the time (n=113).
ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.
Coaching Matchup
Michigan
Jim Harbaugh #1
52–22 (70%)
· Yr 7 at school
OC
Josh Gattis
Yr 1
#1
DC
Mike Macdonald
Yr 1
#1
Penn State
James Franklin #1
63–28 (69%)
· Yr 8 at school
OC
Mike Yurcich
Yr 1
#1
DC
Anthony Poindexter / Brent Pry
Yr 1
#1
About these metrics
Advanced Stats shows matchup-adjusted factor edges (offense vs opponent defense). Combination signals — when PPA, PPO, Success Rate, and Havoc all point the same direction — have historically predicted the SU winner in 95–97% of games and the ATS winner in 82–83% of games (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS, regular season).
Impact: Advanced Stats are the best performance based metric used to predict the outcome of games. ✓
Momentum Control (CSS) measures consecutive scoring sequences — when a team scores, holds the opponent scoreless, then scores again. Teams entering a game with a CSS edge of +1.0 or more have won 71–78% of games historically (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS).
Impact: CSS is not a predictive ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set. ✗
Game Control (GC) measures win probability dominance — how thoroughly a team controlled the game from start to finish. Teams with a GC edge of +12 or more have won 67–76% of games historically. When both metrics agree, combined confidence is higher. When they split, treat as a lean at best.
Impact: GS is not a predictive ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set. ✗
Power Ratings are a custom-built composite of a Teams Talent, Experience & Production, Coaching & Performance Metrics. These are updated constantly with roster changes, performance once the games start for the 2026 season, injuries the team is dealing with and scheduling situations.
Impact: There are a wide range of power ratings available, we think ours is the best, you can decide for yourself ✓
Advanced Stats shows matchup-adjusted factor edges (offense vs opponent defense). Combination signals — when PPA, PPO, Success Rate, and Havoc all point the same direction — have historically predicted the SU winner in 95–97% of games and the ATS winner in 82–83% of games (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS, regular season).
Impact: Advanced Stats are the best performance based metric used to predict the outcome of games. ✓
Momentum Control (CSS) measures consecutive scoring sequences — when a team scores, holds the opponent scoreless, then scores again. Teams entering a game with a CSS edge of +1.0 or more have won 71–78% of games historically (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS).
Impact: CSS is not a predictive ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set. ✗
Game Control (GC) measures win probability dominance — how thoroughly a team controlled the game from start to finish. Teams with a GC edge of +12 or more have won 67–76% of games historically. When both metrics agree, combined confidence is higher. When they split, treat as a lean at best.
Impact: GS is not a predictive ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set. ✗
Power Ratings are a custom-built composite of a Teams Talent, Experience & Production, Coaching & Performance Metrics. These are updated constantly with roster changes, performance once the games start for the 2026 season, injuries the team is dealing with and scheduling situations.
Impact: There are a wide range of power ratings available, we think ours is the best, you can decide for yourself ✓